In armament handbook for F-15A they are marked as ECM pod pylons
Oh no, absolutely not. Gaijin says these maneuvers are impossible without ripping a wing. This must be Arma footage…
😂😂😂
F-15EX has new fuselage.
At least give us no wing rip
I know that haha.
I also know the existing air frames are drastically more capable than the Snail claims. A two foot section of wing causes the whole plane to crash in this game. In real life the aircraft has been documented losing an entire side and flying fine.
I’m just joking because they’ve gimped the ever living daylights out of the plane. 400 KP/H and I’m tearing wings during 4-5G maneuvers completely randomly. It’s like it has nothing to do with the capability of the aircraft and they RNGd structural failures.
I am fairly certain the majority of 12.3+ aircraft are so strong they are capable of breaking their pilot due to excessive G load before the aircraft breaks. (Aircraft breaking as in catastrophic mid-air structural failure such as a classic gaijin wing rip/tree forcefield)
The F-15 is prone to lateral instability which would lead to danger degradation of flight characteristics. This is one of the reasons why hinge points 1 and 9 are not used. The other reason is the wing tip area is highly stressed and the use of a hinge point would lead to worsening.
I’m not sure if we are on the same page or not. Are you saying that in real life they are better or that the issue doesn’t exist in the game? Just trying to make sure.
I’m saying the human would break/pass out from over G before the plane would fall apart on many of these modern aircraft.
It’s just that gaijin takes limits of “beyond this G load aircraft must be inspected” as “beyond this G limit the aircraft begins to disassemble itself in flight”.
Oh yes, I completely agree in that case.
Gaijin multiply the maximum g limit in the manual by 1.5 in order to get the breaking g in game.
Does the f15 have a diamond to show what the missile is locking? My f4ej kai has it, but its strange the f15 doesnt. Community Bug Reporting System
Complain about the R73 may have never considered the superior tactical advantage and IRCCM capabilities it offers. It’s not by chance that users of the 9M often fly high even without a good Fox1. Pressuring opponents into disadvantaged positions is something the 9M never accomplish. I have never rated the 9M highly in RB; SIM is a different story
I find the 9M to be quite useful and the R-73 not so much for RB.
That is an F-15A/B. I honestly couldn’t tell you if the controllers to use optical weapons carried over to the F-15C. I know for the A’s systems it was more obtrusive to disable the system than leave it functional and not use it. The best bet for a more definitive answer would be to look at the Israeli F-15Cs. Did they require any modifications to use their stocks of GBU-15s or AGM-130s?
Edit: However, the F-15 Armaments handbook is ambiguous and instead refers to simply the “F-15” without any further designation and was published is 1979, after the C-models existence
I found two opposing sources, one saying the F-15C with modified radar retained anti-ground capabilities and the other source saying it did not. What is certain is that from the beginning the F-15 was intended to carry and use anti-surface munitions. including EO and laser guidance
Pilots were trained early on to use the Eagle in that role as well.
After 1980, A/G training was abandoned. The reminder of the A/G role of the F-15A,B,C,D is the AG switch on the instrument panel in front of the pilot.
That is probably in reference to the radar. The last set of F-15Cs built were with the APG-70 which had addition A2G functions. They were eventually switched to the APG-63v1 which did not have those A2G functions. Doing so would not have affected weapons capability though.
These were the earlier radars, APG-63 and APG-63/PSP
It may if it involves changes to the display itself, since they need a special design to allow them to switch between displaying radar data, and TV data in the same tube, various F-4E, A-4s and A-7s had similar issues.